State v. Taubman
1 CA-CR 16-0518
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Kevin Michael Taubman was convicted of multiple offenses, including attempted theft of means of transportation (a class 4 felony).
- On direct appeal this court affirmed the convictions but vacated Taubman’s sentence on the attempted-theft count because the original sentence was illegal and remanded for resentencing.
- The superior court resentenced Taubman to an aggravated term of 7.5 years for the attempted-theft count.
- The court ordered that sentence to run concurrent to some counts and consecutive to others, and it awarded no presentence incarceration credit.
- Taubman was present with counsel at resentencing; the resentencing complied with Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and the sentence fell within the statutory range for a category two repetitive offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of resentencing procedure | State: Resentencing complied with procedural rules and was proper | Taubman: (implicit challenge) resentencing or its result was improper | Court: Resentencing was lawful; no reversible error |
| Sentence length / statutory range | State: 7.5-year aggravated term is within A.R.S. § 13-703(I) for category two repetitive offender | Taubman: (implicit) sentence may be illegal or excessive | Court: Sentence is within the statutory range and lawful |
| Presentence incarceration credit | State: No error in denying credit under the facts | Taubman: (implicit) entitled to presentence incarceration credit | Court: No reversible error found regarding credit |
| Use of aggravators from jury findings | State: Proper to use jury-found aggravators to enhance sentence (as previously upheld) | Taubman: (implicit) challenge to enhancement | Court: Prior decision upheld use of jury aggravators; no issue here |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes appellate-counsel duty to identify arguable issues and procedure for withdrawing)
- State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (procedure for appellate court review when counsel finds no meritorious issues)
- State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336 (application of Anders/Leon procedures in Arizona appellate practice)
- State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (counsel’s post-appeal obligations and defendant’s options for pro se review)